Facing up to the awful truth

Page Tools

Thank you, Paul McGeough, for a succinct overview of the most open prostitution of democratic principles to be accepted by a supposedly democratic and educated populace ("The strange, sad death of the American way", Herald, June 18).

These revelations were known by those against the war at that time - yet we were bizarrely slammed as pinkos and bleeding hearts. I didn't care about the barbs of sycophants, but I damn well cared when the mainstream media became a recycling unit for the official line at the expense of objective truth. How will the truth fare next time?

Andrew Byrne, Chiswick, June 18.

Paul McGeough's article should be compulsory reading for all who supported the invasion of Iraq. As a nation we enthusiastically swallowed Mr Howard's rhetoric, scorned the dissenters, and were a little too eager to "follow the leader".

The only excuse left for those who refuse to face the emerging facts is that we are there to improve the life of ordinary Iraqis, 98 per cent of whom do not see us as their liberators.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

John Vigours, Neutral Bay, June 18.

Paul McGeough is right. The war in Iraq has just been too much to bear. I propose we just hand the country back to Saddam, restore the sanctions, and everything in Iraq can go back to the peaceful civilised way it was.

Only that way can we be free of the moral ambiguities, difficulties and mistakes that have bedevilled the task of creating a free Iraq. We will be free to return to the good old days (pre-2003) when foreign policy was transparent and honourable, and when politicians never lied.

David Tester, Bronte, June 18.

There may have not been many terrorists among those who went into Abu Ghraib but I bet there are plenty among those coming out.

James Cheeseman, North Ryde, June 18.

There can be no more irritating a person than the one - in this case Les MacDonald (Letters, June 18) - who delights in telling others "I told you so".

So no WMD have been found. What should we do now? Should the occupying force leave immediately and let Iraq sort itself out? Should we reinstate Saddam Hussein in one of his palaces with apologies for inconvenience? As always, there are those too busy pointing the finger to think of an alternative.

Peter Maresch, Lane Cove, June 18.

That's great for you, Les MacDonald, but so what? Many of us who supported the war in Iraq did so not because of WMD or links to terrorists but because a UN resolution had been breached, and, like George Bush, we agreed that it should be enforced. My opinion has not changed.

The resolution has been enforced, Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and Iraqis have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, if it embraces democracy. All of this has been achieved, despite the constant criticism and division from people who enjoy freedom, yet are not willing to risk it so that others might have the same privilege.

Mitchell Beston, Woy Woy, June 18.

I doubt John Howard will respond to Ian Tait (Letters, June 18) to tell him "what job we have to finish in Iraq", so I will. We have an obligation to the Iraqis to assist in the reconstruction of their country and to prevent it from descending into a civil war.

Australia was complicit in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, resulting in the destruction of vast amounts of civil infrastructure and the deaths of scores of people including many civilians. Given the understandable antipathy Iraqis feel for Americans I'm surprised more Australian troops haven't been dispatched to replace them.

Danny O'Brien, Stanmore, June 18.

It's Bush, not Latham,

outside the mainstream

Peter Hartcher's plea that we should accept the US free trade agreement because rejection would disappoint those in the US who supported it is clearly absurd ("Howard sets the trap for a young player", Herald, June 18). Using this benchmark, we would never have any policy that differed from the US.

The FTA should be judged on whether it is in Australia's interest - and it does not meet this test. The agreement gives drug companies the right to seek reviews of decisions leading to higher prices for medicines, places limits on Australian content rules for new forms of media, and adopts US copyright laws resulting in costs to Australia of $88 million a year.

Prominent trade economists - the latest being the ANU and former Productivity Commission economist Dr Philippa Dee- argue the agreement delivers far more to the US than to Australia, partly because of the exclusion of sugar and the limited access to US agricultural markets.

These studies show that the agreement's claimed economic benefits have been greatly exaggerated, and predict only marginal benefits or losses.

For many in the community, it would be an electoral plus for the ALP if it refuses a deal that is not in the national interest. This would not be "anti-American" but pro-Australian.

Dr Patricia Ranald, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Sydney, June 18.

Peter Hartcher takes Mark Latham to task for suggesting new directions for Australian foreign policy. His most robust criticism? "This leaves Latham completely outside the mainstream of US politics." Frankly, this strikes me as worthy of robust praise. The US leadership is full of dangerous unilateralists fed by religious fervour. They are a group whose legitimacy is barely fed by any democratic mandate, and one that only occasionally respects international law.

George Bush has comprehensively failed to win the confidence of the world community, and is subject to increasingly close questioning by the US electorate. In fact, even he is outside the mainstream of US politics, and our leaders should be questioning the misinformation that led us to his ill-fated war in Iraq.

And for commentators like Hartcher to suggest that there are likely recriminations from Australia showing even a hint of an independent foreign policy is absurd. By any measure - even under Latham's suggested policies - Australia will have provided more sustained support for militaristic US policies than virtually any other country.

Justin Wolfers, Assistant professor of economics, Stanford Business School, San Francisco, June 18.

Anglicare's new boss

Adele Horin, by describing Peter Kell as a Jensen man and part of the Jensen camp, seems to be implying that the appointment is of a political nature but not good for Anglicare ("Jensen ally may push church agency towards evangelism ahead of welfare", Herald, June 18).

Any member of the Sydney Synod will tell you that Peter Kell took the lead in supporting another candidate for Archbishop, and that he has time and again publicly demonstrated his independence and integrity in synod, irrespective of who has been in the chair.

Andrew Mitchell, Putney, June 18.

Adele Horin has perpetuated the fallacy that "welfare" must be kept separate from sharing the good news about Jesus. This is something that Jesus never did.

As Peter Jensen commented recently, "[Anglicare] exists to serve, and especially it exists to serve those in need, spiritual, emotional, social or physical."

Adam S. Gregory, Hornsby, June 18.

Iemma's dilemma

Has anyone else noticed that the Health Minister, Morris Iemma, chose to blame the doctors, nurses and managers of Camden and Campbelltown hospitals despite their protestations of insufficient resources, yet everything the State Government has done since involves the huge injection of money, staff and other infrastructure ("Sick hospitals get $300m injection", Herald, June 18)?

It is like the captain of the Titanic choosing to blame the ship's stokers for that unfortunate incident with the iceberg.

Mark Swayn, Ryde, June 18.

The banneds of marriage

There it was in a tiny paragraph - "Gay marriage banned" (Herald, June 18). Nothing to do with discrimination against gays, we are assured by the Attorney-General.

So what exactly is it to do with, we might ask the Coalition and Labor? If they want to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, perhaps they might now reveal what they plan to call committed homosexual relationships, and how they can be recognised and celebrated. Or is the truth more about their not wanting us to have relationships at all?

Rev Dorothy McRae-McMahon, Rozelle, June 18.

Chernobyl's fall-out

Phil Herring (Letters, June 18) has a funny idea of an "own goal". The Chernobyl nuclear disaster killed only 30 immediately, not 34 as he states. But a further 209 people were treated for acute radiation poisoning, with 134 of those cases subsequently confirmed. Radioactive dust settled in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Scandanavia and parts of Europe.

Two hundred thousand people were involved in the clean-up, and the majority received high doses of radiation. Roughly 20,000 of them received very much higher doses. A total of 371,000 people were evacuated, and only 1000 have returned. The exclusion zone is now 4300 square kilometres.

Late in 1995 the World Health Organisation linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among young people to the Chernobyl accident. Some own goal.

Michel Dignand, Wagga Wagga, June 18.

Music to my ears

Why doesn't someone resign from the ABC board for a really good reason, like the organisation's failure to fulfil its charter obligation "to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia"?

Peter Fyfe, Lavender Bay, June 18.

Hardest part is getting

them to sign the papers

Sandra Eckersley (Letters, June 18) is wasting her time searching car magazines and the classifieds for a price on the Kyoto Accord since you cannot buy a Kyoto Accord in Australia.

It has been banned as it does not meet the emission levels required by the Federal Government. Thus it is a threat to the boardroom environment of the oil industry.

George Antonakos, Byron Bay, June 18.

If Sandra Eckersley strips her Kyoto Accord down to its component parts, loads them all into my Microsoft Excel and then takes a long drive, she'll find out the price when she reaches the end.

John Goldbaum, Potts Point, June 18.

Unfortunately, Kyoto Accords can only be leased from the Government. The hard part is trying to find someone to sign the papers.

Brian Johnstone, Leura, June 18.

Tom cut down to size

Looking at film of Tom Cruise's leg of the torch relay is a reminder that the tracksuit is indeed a great leveller.

Caroline Clarke, Glebe, June 18.

Mobile-free and proud

Yvonne Jones (Letters, June 18), be proud of your mobile phone-free status. It says many good things about you.

You are not a slave to your job, being efficient enough to satisfy your employment obligations during normal working hours. You enjoy peace and tranquillity. You plan ahead and never get lost. You are punctual, organised and able to fend for yourself.

Consider yourself elite.

Carl Sparre, Eastwood, June 18.

Baby boomers beware

It is too early for Patrick Snowden and the baby boomers (Letters, June 18) to assume they have escaped: as Patrick gets older he may yet end up in mothballs.

David Atkinson, Beecroft, June 18.

Check out the real deal

Forget the bland Beatles. If anyone wants to seriously reminisce about music, they should get a copy of Jerry Lee Lewis's Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On because June 19 is the anniversary of when this song was recorded back in the 1950s.

This tune still oozes sex, rebellion and defiance; it is also guaranteed to get your toes tapping and your hips swivelling, as well as put a smile on your face.

Con Vaitsas, Marrickville, June 18.

Fools for love

While the date for the Standard Wife's Birthday is still under discussion (Letters, June 16, 18) that of the Standard Husband is a "gimme".

Page Tools

Send your letters to:letters@smh.com.au
Fax: +61 (0)2 9282 3492
Snailmail: GPO Box 3771, Sydney 2001All letters and email (no attachments) to the Herald must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification. Letter writers who would like receipt of their letters acknowledged should send a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words. By submitting your letter for publication, you agree that we may edit the letter for legal, space or other reasonable reasons and may, after publication in the newspaper, republish it on the Internet or in other media.